Posted 2 years ago on Aug. 17, 2012, 1:36 p.m. EST by ericweiss
(575)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

4 Ways Paul Ryan’s Budget Would Devastate the Poor

By Igor Volsky and Pat Garofalo Nation of Change

National media attention has focused on Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) drastic restructuring of the Medicare program, detailing the Vice Presidential candidate’s efforts to transform the current benefit guarantee into a “premium support” program for future enrollees.

But Romney/Ryan’s most devastating changes would impact programs that serve society’s most vulnerable citizens. American who rely on Medicaid, food stamps and Pell grants won’t be afforded the luxury of retaining their existing benefits, should Romney and Ryan implement their plans; these programs would experience immediate reductions if the Ryan budget becomes law (via CBPP):

CUTS FOOD STAMPS BY $133 BILLION: Ryan’s budget would send the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, or food stamps) back to the states as a block grant and cut the program by $134 billion. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “an average of almost 10 million people would have to be cut from the program in the years from 2016 through 2022 to achieve the required savings.” If the cuts were to come from benefits, rather than kicking families out of the program, “All families of four — including the poorest — would see their benefits cut by about $90 a month in fiscal year 2016, or more than $1,100 on an annual basis.” Ryan continually claims that the food stamp program is “unsustainable,” even though the numbers show that’s simply not the case.

CUTS MEDICAID BY 1/3%: Ryan would treat Medicaid in the same way: transform the exiting matching-grant financing structure into a pre-determined block grant that will not keep up with actual health care spending and send it back to the states. This would shift some of the burden of Medicaid’s growing costs to the states, forcing them to — in the words of the CBO — make cutbacks that “involve reduced eligibility for Medicaid and CHIP, coverage of fewer services, lower payments to providers, or increased cost sharing by beneficiaries—all of which would reduce access to care.” The reductions to Medicaid kick in right away: between 2013 and 2022, the budget makes $1.4 trillion in cuts to Medicaid —a 34 percent reduction. As a result, states could reduce enrollment by more than 14 million people, or almost 20 percent—even if they are were able to slow the growth in health care costs substantially.

30 MILLION AMERICANS WOULD LOSE HEALTH COVERAGE: Romney and Ryan would repeal the Affordable Care Act, including the subsidies for middle-class Americans to purchase coverage and the expansion of the Medicaid program for lower-income Americans. As a result, more than 30 million Americans would lose access to insurance. The popular regulations that prohibit insurers from denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions and rescinding coverage would also be repealed.

CUTS PELL GRANTS FOR 1 MILLION STUDENTS: Ryan consistently claims that increases in financial aid are driving up the cost of higher education, even though evidence doesn’t back him up. The budget Ryan authored, according to an analysis by the Education Trust, would eliminate Pell Grants entirely for one million students. In 2011, 74 percent of Pell Grant recipients had family incomes of $30,000 or less. These cuts would come despite the fact that the price of a college degree has skyrocketed 1,120 percent over the last three decades.

OWS must be the difference in the future. If we can't grow this movement, mount massive protests to pressure all pols for progressive solutions. Then a revolution will be the only way to get real equity!

If you have opinions and beliefs such as :
……Obama is not an American / Obama can control gas prices / Obama is a Muslim -
don’t waste your time reading the following facts

If you have opinions and beliefs such as :
……(sotomayor+kagan) = (alito+roberts)
don’t waste your time reading the following facts

If you have opinions and beliefs such as :
……or president is an all powerful executive that can always do what he wants
don’t waste your time reading the following facts

If you have opinions and beliefs such as :
……evolution is a “theory”, Noah put the kangaroos back in Australia, Bush is not a war monger
don’t waste your time reading the following facts

If you believe that, during the last 5 years, that
……Bain Romney or Cotton Mather Santorum has helped America
don’t waste your time reading the following facts

…
1. Passed Health Care Reform: After five presidents over a century failed to create universal health insurance, signed the Affordable Care Act (2010). It will cover 32 million uninsured Americans beginning in 2014 and mandates a suite of experimental measures to cut health care cost growth, the number one cause of America’s long-term fiscal problems.

Passed the Stimulus: Signed $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in 2009 to spur economic growth amid greatest recession since the Great Depression. Weeks after stimulus went into effect, unemployment claims began to subside. Twelve months later, the private sector began producing more jobs than it was losing, and it has continued to do so for twenty-three straight months, creating a total of nearly 3.7 million new private-sector jobs.

Passed Wall Street Reform: Signed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (2010) to re-regulate the financial sector after its practices caused the Great Recession. The new law tightens capital requirements on large banks and other financial institutions, requires derivatives to be sold on clearinghouses and exchanges, mandates that large banks provide “living wills” to avoid chaotic bankruptcies, limits their ability to trade with customers’ money for their own profit, and creates the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (now headed by Richard Cordray) to crack down on abusive lending products and companies.

Ended the War in Iraq: Ordered all U.S. military forces out of the country. Last troops left on December 18, 2011.

Began Drawdown of War in Afghanistan: From a peak of 101,000 troops in June 2011, U.S. forces are now down to 91,000, with 23,000 slated to leave by the end of summer 2012. According to Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, the combat mission there will be over by next year.

Eliminated Osama bin laden: In 2011, ordered special forces raid of secret compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, in which the terrorist leader was killed and a trove of al-Qaeda documents was discovered.

Turned Around U.S. Auto Industry: In 2009, injected $62 billion in federal money (on top of $13.4 billion in loans from the Bush administration) into ailing GM and Chrysler in return for equity stakes and agreements for massive restructuring. Since bottoming out in 2009, the auto industry has added more than 100,000 jobs. In 2011, the Big Three automakers all gained market share for the first time in two decades. The government expects to lose $16 billion of its investment, less if the price of the GM stock it still owns increases.

Recapitalized Banks: In the midst of financial crisis, approved controversial Treasury Department plan to lure private capital into the country’s largest banks via “stress tests” of their balance sheets and a public-private fund to buy their “toxic” assets. Got banks back on their feet at essentially zero cost to the government.

Repealed “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”: Ended 1990s-era restriction and formalized new policy allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military for the first time.

Toppled Moammar Gaddafi: In March 2011, joined a coalition of European and Arab governments in military action, including air power and naval blockade, against Gaddafi regime to defend Libyan civilians and support rebel troops. Gaddafi’s forty-two-year rule ended when the dictator was overthrown and killed by rebels on October 20, 2011. No American lives were lost.

Told Mubarak to Go: On February 1, 2011, publicly called on Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to accept reform or step down, thus weakening the dictator’s position and putting America on the right side of the Arab Spring. Mubarak ended thirty-year rule when overthrown on February 11.

Reversed Bush Torture Policies: Two days after taking office, nullified Bush-era rulings that had allowed detainees in U.S. custody to undergo certain “enhanced” interrogation techniques considered inhumane under the Geneva Conventions. Also released the secret Bush legal rulings supporting the use of these techniques.

Improved America’s Image Abroad: With new policies, diplomacy, and rhetoric, reversed a sharp decline in world opinion toward the U.S. (and the corresponding loss of “soft power”) during the Bush years. From 2008 to 2011, favorable opinion toward the United tates rose in ten of fifteen countries surveyed by the Pew Global Attitudes Project, with an average increase of 26 percent.

Kicked Banks Out of Federal Student Loan Program, Expanded Pell Grant Spending: As part of the 2010 health care reform bill, signed measure ending the wasteful decades-old practice of subsidizing banks to provide college loans. Starting July 2010 all students began getting their federal student loans directly from the federal government. Treasury will save $67 billion over ten years, $36 billion of which will go to expanding Pell Grants to lower-income students.

Created Race to the Top: With funds from stimulus, started $4.35 billion program of competitive grants to encourage and reward states for education reform.

Boosted Fuel Efficiency Standards: Released new fuel efficiency standards in 2011 that will nearly double the fuel economy for cars and trucks by 2025.

Coordinated International Response to Financial Crisis: To keep world economy out of recession in 2009 and 2010, helped secure from G-20 nations more than $500 billion for the IMF to provide lines of credit and other support to emerging market countries, which kept them liquid and avoided crises with their currencies.

Passed Mini Stimuli: To help families hurt by the recession and spur the economy as stimulus spending declined, signed series of measures (July 22, 2010; December 17, 2010; December 23, 2011) to extend unemployment insurance and cut payroll taxes.

Began Asia “Pivot”: In 2011, reoriented American military and diplomatic priorities and focus from the Middle East and Europe to the Asian-Pacific region. Executed multipronged strategy of positively engaging China while reasserting U.S. leadership in the region by increasing American military presence and crafting new commercial, diplomatic, and military alliances with neighboring countries made uncomfortable by recent Chinese behavior.

Increased Support for Veterans: With so many soldiers coming home from Iraq and Iran with serious physical and mental health problems, yet facing long waits for services, increased 2010 Department of Veterans Affairs budget by 16 percent and 2011 budget by 10 percent. Also signed new GI bill offering $78 billion in tuition assistance over a decade, and provided multiple tax credits to encourage businesses to hire veterans.

do you have the courage to answer this question:WHICH OF THESE ACHIEVEMENTS IS BAD FOR AMERICA?
AND WHY?

This will take a while to respond to. First off why do you automatically jump to the conclusion that I.m a repub and not a dem who feels betrayed. Now I agree deserves credit for the autobailout and stimilus,

Dodd frank is way to little if it wasn't we wouldn't be as bad off. Bankers still evade all punishment. Health care was a repub idea as written to make money for big insurance. Should have been single payor. As for wars the timetable set by bush was followed by obama. Should have been out sooner. We should not have intervened in Libya. We should have been out of Afghanistan years ago. You forgot to mention drone strikes in pakistan and yemen which included the murder of us citizens. Repeal DADT and killing bin laden was awesome. Either party would have aised vet benefits unless the repubs are even furthur gone then i thought. And obama should have refused to sign ndaa and made congress override him. He could have went to the american people about fact we are under threat of losing judicial rights if the military wanted and the repubs would have been on the run and 2012 would have been a dem infl_enced year. He's a smart guy so I conclude he wanted ndaa passed. Now we could have a president who did everything i want and as long as he is killing us citizens and allowing due process to die I will oppose him. Unfortunately the left who is the the bastion of human rights defense is eating out of his palm. At least if a repub tried this we would be willing to oppose him. So in conclusion I can not in good conscience support him which means not being quiet when people are told to support him.

In regards to education listen to neil degraff tyson the astrophysicists to the benefit of a robust space effort will have on the imagination of americas youth. Ore money and programs will not prevent the dumbing down by pop culture. When was the last scientist we as a society recognized for their greatness. Instead we are still fighting over basics facts such as evolution and greenhouse effect which is due to repub christian fundamentalists. If I seem inflammatory it is because I am deeply afraid fot the future of our constitution. To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin "He who gives up essential liberties for temporary safety deserve neither."

How did he define war? I think he is anti war. I think everyone kills people during war! It's kind of the defining element no? He's not talking about war now? Is that ok? You don't support the great Bernie Sanders?

Khadafi used his grand children as human shields? That is inhuman! But I'm not surprised. He was one of the most brutal dictators on the planet. I'm glad NATO dealt with him. Finally. It only took 3 decades! And do you support Bin Laden? That was also a good thing no?

But Khadafi knew we were gonna blow his ass up right? So if he wasn't using them as protection then I guess he didn't give a shit about them. Maybe he wanted them to die with him. Who the fuck knows? Who the fuck cares? You care about Khadafi's grand kids? I'll leave that care to that lowlife, brutal, civilian slaughtering, piece of shit Kha daffy. You support that motherfucker? Then you've lost sight of right and wrong.

We were aiming for Khadafi and his military. Khadafi put his kids in the way. That is on him. He used the kids thinking we would stop. But we will not be turned. "Ain't gonna let nobody turn me 'round, turn me round"

No coincidence. But I can't pretend Khadafi wasn't a brutal dictator that we were in bed with for decades and needed to end. It was time for the people of Libya to have their country back. Do they have it back? Did an Islamic govt gain power/influence.? That isn't the neocon plan is it.? Gimme a break. I don't give a fuck about Libya. Obama showed the far superior way to use our arsenal of liberty. Repubs are squealing like pigs cause we are letting Islamists take power. This ain't no neocon plan.

I never said this was worse then the neocon plan. Doesn't it bother you we are killing people for their oil. If you are so worried about human rights why aren't you pushing for the invasion of north korea. The fact is our government doesn't give a shit for human rights. It's all about how much we an make for big oil.

I care about oil wars. Pres Obama Bushes iraqi oil war and is ending the other one. He has resisted the repub war mongers pressure to invade Iran, He has reduced our military killing from 1 million + to thousands, He has done more for alt energy than all pres combined.

Pres would have made more progress on all these issues if the repubs hadn't obstructed him! He will do more if we can replace conservatives with progressives.

I think it's bad Khadafi put kids in the line of fire. We don't have bombs that discern the age of our targets. We absolutely were helping the civilians in Libya. Your criticism is pure republican talking points. Obama helped the Euro's execute this mission. It was theirs. It was the right thing. It was a success! That is why you and the republicans are unhappy because Obama showed them how to use the military as the "arsenal of freedom" and not for oil wars, and the endless war on terror!

One way the Barackster would devastate the poor: ignore the coming collapse of social security, medicare, medicaid and the pension systems that have overpromised on everything.

"American who rely on Medicaid, food stamps and Pell grants won’t be afforded the luxury of retaining their existing benefits"

Just wait until the whole damn thing collapses. The MATH of ponzi schemes says so, as do the trustee reports of social security, medicare, etc. Medicaid takes one third of all state taxes to sustain and it's moving rapidly towards half of all state taxes. Medicaid is literally bankrupting the states today.

If you think cuts are bad now, wait until MATH catches up and we tip over like Greece or Spain. Then there will be NOTHING. Then you can really whine.

Here is Ryans actual plan - you decide if it's going to throw people under the buss.

Repairing a Broken Medicaid System
Major proposals\

• Secure the Medicaid benefit by converting the federal share of Medicaid spending into a block grant tailored to meet each state’s needs, indexed for inflation and population growth. This reform ends the misguided one-size-fits-all approach that has tied the hands of so many state governments.

States will no longer be shackled by federally determined program requirements
and enrollment criteria. Instead, they will have the freedom and flexibility to tailor a Medicaid program that fits the needs of their unique populations.

• Improve the health-care safety net for low-income Americans by giving states the ability to offer their Medicaid populations more options and better access to care. Medicaid recipients, like all Americans, deserve to choose their own doctors and make their own health care decisions, instead of having Washington dictate those decisions for them.

• Save $750 billion over ten years, contributing to the long-term stabilization of the federal government’s fiscal path and encouraging fiscal responsibility at the state level.

Medicaid, the program created in the 1960s to provide health-care coverage for the poor, is coming apart at the seams. The open-ended nature of the program’s financing structure has created rapidly rising costs that are nearly impossible to check. In 1966, the first year of the program’s operation, total costs were $400 million.

By 2009, the total cost of administering Medicaid had soared to $378.6 billion. Absent fundamental reform, costs are expected to continue climbing and are expected to reach a total of $840 billion by 2019.

Under Medicaid, state governments and the federal government share the cost of providing medical services to low-income families. But a flawed federal-state matching formula has fueled runaway state spending – and the results in terms of state debt are plain to see. Medicaid is now the largest line-item on most states’ budgets –
surpassing even education – and accounted for 22 percent of total state spending in 2010.

Meanwhile, much of the federal government’s share of the spending is wasted because the bureaucracy cannot provide adequate oversight of this open-ended program: Medicaid’s improper payment rate is over 10 percent, more than three times the amount of waste that other federal agencies generate. This translates into $33 billion
worth of waste each year.

Medicaid’s current structure gives states a perverse incentive to grow the program and little incentive to save. The federal government pays an average of 57 cents of every dollar spent on Medicaid. Expanding Medicaid coverage during boom years is tempting and easy to do – state governments pay less than half the cost of such expansions.

Yet to restrain Medicaid’s growth, states must rescind a dollar’s worth of coverage to save 43 cents. Moreover, states are not given adequate flexibility when it comes to achieving those savings – one-size-fits-all federal mandates tie their hands with regard to coverage options, and many times the only way states can achieve savings is through formulaic cuts to medical providers.

This is why so many doctors refuse to take Medicaid – states have reduced their reimbursements below what the market will bear.20 For doctors who see Medicaid patients at below-market reimbursement rates, losses are shifted to non-Medicaid
patients.21 The cost-shifting that occurs from government rationing remains a significant contributor to health inflation, which in turn puts quality, affordable health coverage out-of-reach

Hank is a little on the straight edge side, but I'm afraid he'd be compelled to kick TN's ass.

I thought it was funny because the republicans are having such a hard time getting music that the artists will allow them to use. Henry could and would recreate that video at the CONvention LOL! That would be sweet.

It was Dem admin in office last time we got a balanced budget. And then the next admin (repub) blew the budget out of the water. Repub presidents are fiscally irresponsible. Dem presidents are always smarter when it comes to ecomomics.

This admin already cut a trillion from the budget, & has a plan four 4 trillion more. The last Dem Admin created and left surplus, The last republican admin blew the budget out of the water and is responsible for the last 3 years of deficits.

He cut from middle class programs, Dems screamed but he was trying to compromise with repubs. The cuts were not $1T in each year but over 10 years.. The huge $16Trill national debt was created by Bushs reckless tax cuts for the wealthy, 2 wars on credit, and the $1.2Trill annual deficit Bush left!

Look the dems were in control for two years - they had ample time to make drastic changes but instead they focused on healthcare.

So here we are 3.5 years down the road and we are still having a debate about what Bush did.

I think it's time to move on and look at what's going to happen to this country down the road - not what has already happened.

Obama made promises and lead the X,Y and millenium generation to believe that he could change things and that's what they voted on and that's what they believed - They weren't concerned about anything other then the promises he made.

You can't blame Bush or the Republicans for the promises that Obama made to the people who voted for him, and you can't blame Bush or the Republicans becaue Obama didn't deliver.

If small businesses did this when they advertise to sell their product they would be out of business.

If a small business owner took over a business from a previous owner, and made statements about their business being able to provide A, B, and C order to sell contracts and in the end they can't deliver - who's at fault

Is the small business owner justified in blaming the previous owner and telling his customers who have a contract with that it's not his fault that he couldn't deliver those services.

It's the same with this administration - Obama made promises to those who believed in what he promised, he didn't deliver and now it's Bushes and the Republicans fault.

Don't you think he should have thought about the consequences of his promises when he was running for office should he not be able to deliver those promises?

Apparently he didn't and I am not sure of the reason but I think it was lack of experience in understanding how Congress and the Federal Government operate.

So you can continue to believe that this adminstration is going to somehow stimulate the economy and continue to believe that it's Bushes and the republicans fault.

In the end he is the one who made those promises not Bush nor the Republicans, and it is he who has to deal with the consequences of his actions because he did not understanding what he was going to be up against.

'Look the dems were in control for two years - they had ample time to make drastic changes but instead they focused on healthcare'.

This is such an enraging statement. I hardly know where to begin. Democrats, activists, citizens have been fighting for a national healthcare program for 30 years. How dare you belittle those efforts. Healthcare is a drastic change! That took over 30 years to be realized. Would we have gotten a national healthcare program under McCain?

Major change is the result of many many years of collective efforts to finally become realized. You seem to suggest otherwise. Like an infant. That your first cry results in a bottle of milk. Are you an infant? Grow the fuck up. You expect drastic change in a
four year period? You expect the worst recession since the Depression to be turned around in four years? It took FDR 4 terms and he had WWII to help him!

You sound like you have no idea how the real world works. It is not your personal instant gratification machine.

Major change takes a long time! Did Pres. Johnson singlehandedly achieve Civil Rights by himself, overnight? Did Pres. Nixon wake up one day and decide to create the EPA? And accomplish environmental protection all by himself? Do you think the big business takeover of government happened overnight? It's been 40 years in the making. Check the Powell Memorandum and Buckley v Valeo.

Absurdly naive. In the grown up world campaign promises are mostly goals and visions. Most realistically viewed as making steps towards that vision. The government isn't your personal instant gratification machine. If you want instant gratification go grab your vibrator, or jerk off. Whichever you want I don't care.

'So you can continue to believe that this adminstration is going to somehow stimulate the economy'. If his stimulus plan last fall had been passed it would have stimulated the economy! The party of no said no. Jeesh. At least recognize the reality of the situation. The unemployment rate would be a point lower and private sector job creation would be increasing instead of decreasing! Just as private sector jobs increased after the first stimulus plan.

Pick your side and put on your big boy pants. Most of whatever major change is discussed today will likely not be achieved for another 10 or 30 years. It's really unfair to blame Pres. Obama for your naivete. Pick your side and stop acting like a baby. Either you're a neolib or your not.

Let me ask - if you what you say about me not having any idea about how the real world works and that it takes many years of collective efforts for change to finally become realized did Obama have the same thoughts?

Please explain to me where in any of the speeches Obama made when he was running for office that he said

" I promise you change but it's going to take more then 10 or 30 years?
" I promise you change but it's going to take more then 10 or 30 years to bring the debt down"?
" I promise you change but it's going to take more then 10 or 30 years to bring unemployment back down to below 6%

Where, tell me where he made any of these comments in his speeches that would alert the people of this country that "change" wasn't going to happen anytime soon - where did he say that?

He didn't - he led people to believe that it was going to happen instantenously - he bragged how he was going to get unemployment under 6% during his first term in office.

He bragged about how he was going to lower the debt during his first term in office.

He bragged about how the stimilus was going to create millions of jobs and put "anyone who wanted a job" back to work.

You can't blame Bush nor the Republicans for those comments - no sir - and if the people believed what he promised not knowing that it was going to take 10 or 30 years then shame on them for voting for him.

He still has his same speech - same ol, same ol, still trying to convince people that he can make "cange".

The only change he made for the people of this country to date, is the change they have in their pocket.

Now, if you want proof of this, I can provide you with a link to Obamas 2008 "Blueprint for Change - Obama and Biden’s Plan for America

'I never heard him mention that change would take 10 to 30 years'. Because he didn't have to! Most people with two brain cells to rub together understand that major change does not happen 'instantaneously'. Most people know that campaign 'promises' are mostly visions and philosophy about what direction the country should take. And taking steps in that direction to the extent possible given political realities and support from the electorate. The fact that you don't understand this is your absurdly stupid naivete problem. Not the President's fault. The fact that absurdly stupid and naive people like you go out and vote absurdly stupidly - is everyone's problem.

'not knowing that it was going to take 10 or 30 years then shame on them'. Uhhhhh.... nooooo. Make that shame on 'you'. For you to ignorantly believe otherwise.

The deepest most damaging recession in history is not going to be turned around in four years. When it's been in the making for 30. Really. What the hell is wrong with you? Every recovery in modern history has been helped byyyy ... wait for it ... wait for it .... housing! This recession is the result of housing you freaking nitwit! Read a little economic history once in while. Or..... just continue to be ignorant.

Honestly. Was 2008 the first time you were old enough to vote? That's fine. Good for you. Still a teenager accustomed to instant gratifcation? Get your hand off Mr. Happy and do some research. Read the Ryan/Romeny budget plan.

And if you think giving $295k government assistance to millionaires is a great plan, go ahead and vote for that. If you think that destroying essential government programs for the most vulnerable in society, with the least voice, is a great idea, go ahead and vote for that (news flash Sweet Potato - poor people don't have SuperPacs and lobbyists getting paid enormous sums of money in order to funnel more enormous sums of money into campaign coffers). If you think increasing the already absurdly huge military budget is a great idea, go ahead and vote for that direction. If you think wealthy people are 'the job creators', go ahead and vote for that (another news flash for ya Cupcake - they're not). And if you think that reducing the debt on the backs of the poor and the working poor is a great plan for the country, by all means! Vote Republican.

But extreme measures of austerity in the middle of a jobless recovery is fucking insane. It's not only Draconian, but it's horribly bad economics and dangerous for society as a whole. Not to mention the individual pain and suffering it would cause millions of people, elderly and innocent children. Yeah - you go ahead and vote for that.

What gets us out of a recession is the lower and middle classes building up their economic reserves. The wealthy drain us like a vampire bat drains it's victim. For 5-10 years they suck our financial lifeblood to the point of weakness. We build back our reserves and health, then the blood letting begins again.

But this time they are feeding on our flesh, tearing the muscle that supports this once great body. It staggers and trembles as it attempts to keep from falling.

Austerity would be like restricting nourishment for this body, just when it needs every calorie to sustain it's balance, it will weaken it further and insure it's collapse.

keep bush tax cuts for the 98%
INCREASE taxes on the 2%
use an AMT of 20% on corporations
drop oil co subsidies
eliminate cap gains low rates
double cap gains taxes on buy -sell or sell-buy trades completed in less than one day

Sure, I also favor most of these taxes. But we need to raise wages first. Instead of money flowing to the government and trickling down to the people, they should get it directly from the employer as they earn it, not months later and at the discretion of each succeeding administration. Wouldn't that be more effective?

Not exactly the most pleasant visual! But you'll get no argument from me.

'What gets us out of a recession is the lower and middle classes building up their economic reserves'. Totally agree. Personal balance sheets have to be cleaned up for sure. In the mean time, there has to be government spending to fill the gap. Once peoples balance sheet house is in order, they can spend more of their discretionary income into the economy again. Until then, without government spending, it's just a continued downward spiral.

Government spending isn't the best way to redistribute wealth. If it takes from the masses by taxation, then gives it back to them, minus the governments handling loss, what is the advantage?

A fair wage is the most equitable way to distribute wealth. Trying to undo unfair wealth distribution after the fact by government intervention is rarely successful, especially when their motivation is to do the opposite.

Without unions or some kind of real negotiation for a fair share of the wealth they help create, the people will always be at the mercy of the next administrations economic policy. Put the power of dividing the economic pie in the hands of the people. The unions were responsible for the relative wealth equality that existed in the 40's, 50's, and 60's. As their numbers diminished from 35% to 12%, so did our share of the wealth.

The GDP per worker in this country is over $100,000 per year. We need to negotiate so that workers make more than just a third of this figure. Sports stars use agents to get higher paying contracts. The workers need to do the same.

It's not 30 years in the making. My john birch uncles were talking austerity and states rights to enslave anyone they choose in 1952. They were louder by '62 but still then no one listened to the idiots. But by '72 the snowball had started rolling slowly down.

Interesting. I was more referring to when wealth inequality started rising. We were told that more free trade would be beneficial. Some dangerous deregulation happened and supply-side theories were embraced. Everyone was told to help the wealthy 'job creators' and hate on government. Private industry - good. Government always 'bad'. And now that's become the mantra. Totally ingrained in people's psyches. Like a religion. And carried to further and further extremes.

Btw 'VQ', by that I didn't necessarily just mean that 'she gets better with age', tho' she probably does that too ! I meant she gains from being decanted & allowed to breathe a little !! But don't we all, LOL ?!!!

Like an exclusive, smooth and stealthy full bodied Burgandy, with a top note of chocolate and an after tone of blackberry, y'mean ?!!! Ever considered a more diverse, diffuse and mass market approach ?!!

I'm sure you want to stop discussing what happened before. I wouldn't want to talk about what my presidential guy did to this country. I thnk we need to discuss it a little longer. 75 days or so. The republicans HAVE obstructed with filibuster the 1st 2 years and beyond. We ain't gonna cover up that treasonous action. And this ain't a business. Sorry. The govt requires everyone compromise, Repub tea party have behaved like spoiled brats. I didn't believe any campaign promises. What kinda moron believes campaign promises. So I wasn't hypnotized, and I haven't been disillusioned. In fact Pres Obama has gotten a whole lot more done than I expected. Because I knew he would face the most powerful, evil force of resistance we have ever seen. The 1% plutocrats and their republican puppets ain't gonna give up power easily. It will take years. And it won't happen if we don't protest against the 1%

I don't think Obama thought about the consequences of not keeping his promises because there aren't any consequences. Too many of the people who voted for him will vote for him again even though he sold them out.